Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 387709 + unreproducible
Bug#387709: fails to start
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible
> thank you
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Another problem with smart-notifier is that it calls dh_python but
> > lacks a pycompat file, so the new dh_python will do old-style stuff
> > with it, including adding a postinst call to compileall.py.
>
> that's RC then. and a packaging problem, no
tags 390654 + unreproducible
thanks
strange. works for me.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tags 387709 + unreproducible
thank you
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 09:37:49PM +0200, Miguel Gea Milvaques wrote:
> The xfonts-* installed/non-installed in my system:
Miguel, other people have more or less the same fonts installed and
can't reproduce. Can you strace or gdb it and see if you find
somet
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:25:56 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390772: xserver-xorg-core: Server fails to start after
upgrade to 1.1.1-9
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 390654 + unreproducible
Bug#390654: gcj-4.1_4.1.1-15(hppa/unstable): FTBFS: missing argument?
There were no tags set.
Tags added: unreproducible
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking sys
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> found 390693 4.1.1ds1-12
Bug#390693: gcc-4.1 fails to build the glibc on ia64
Bug marked as found in version 4.1.1ds1-12.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administr
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:02:09 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#389962: fixed in noffle 1.2.0~rc1-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now
Package: apache2.2-common
Version: 2.2.3-1
Severity: grave
Justification: causes non-serious data loss
[root mad] cd /etc/apache2/mods-available ; svn info | grep URL
URL :
svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-apache/trunk/apache2/config-dir/mods-available
says it all. I happen to version my /etc/
Package: apache2-mpm-prefork
Version: 2.2.3-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
sorry for the french locale, but I guess all is pretty clear enough.
* Stopping apache 2.0 web server...
grep: /etc/apache2/conf.d/[^.#]*: Aucun fichier ou répertoire de ce type
[ ok ]
Package: apache2.2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
it seems that there is a problem to stop apache2 that makes the upgrade fail.
* Stopping apache 2.0 web server...
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:47:05 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390419: fixed in libbonoboui 2.14.0-5
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is n
Package: kaffeine
Version: 0.8.2-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Since the last apt-get update & upgrade kaffeine refuses to start completely,
it exits immediately without any output (no text on console, X screen ...).
This is the output when I want to start kaffeine f
severity 390817 important
force-merge 390817 390785
thanks
Pierre Habouzit skrev:
says it all. I happen to version my /etc/ files under svn, hence the
loss that incured because it messed up with the .svn dirs in a bad way.
Please look at already-filed bugs before filing new bugs.
- tfheen
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 390817 important
Bug#390817: apache2.2-common: /etc/apache2/*-available/ have .svn dirs inside
Severity set to `important' from `grave'
> force-merge 390817 390785
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
> thanks
Stopping processin
Package: apache2-common
Version: 2.0.55-4.2
Severity: serious
it should have been made an empty package, without maintainer scripts,
so that it could be purged, as it's superseeded with apache2.2-common.
[madcoder mad] LC_ALL=C sudo dpkg --purge apache2-common
(Reading database ... 142646 fi
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:24:27 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390431: freemind: locks up when starting new map
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the c
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:17:29 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390521: fixed in isomd5sum 11.1.0.95-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 390562 firefox
Bug#390562: firefox: CPU eating while waiting for passwd
Bug reassigned from package `openoffice.org' to `firefox'.
> severity 390562 normal
Bug#390562: firefox: CPU eating while waiting for passwd
Severity set to `normal' from
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21
> close 390812
Bug#390812: apache2.2: does not upgrades
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Warning: Unknown package 'apache2.2'
Bug closed, send an
Package: dirmngr
Version: 0.9.6-1
Severity: serious
Justification: unavailable dependency
Hello,
dirmngr depends on libpth2 but this package was removed from sid.
The name is now libpth20.
A rebuild or a binNMU should fix this problem.
thx.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstabl
Package: gnupg-agent
Version: 1.9.20-2
Severity: serious
Justification: unavailable deps
Hello,
gnupg-agent depends on libpth2 but this got removed from sid.
The name is now libpth20.
A binNMU should fix this problem (thats why I cc: to vorlon because
he closes these bugs.;))
-- System Informati
Tilman Schr� wrote:
> Package: kaffeine
> Version: 0.8.2-1
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
>
> Since the last apt-get update & upgrade kaffeine refuses to start completely,
> it exits immediately without any output (no text on console, X screen ...).
>
> This is th
Stefano Melchior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Package: aspell-it
>> Version: 0.60.20060723-1
>> Severity: grave
>> Justification: renders package unusable
>>
>> This is the message:
>>
>> Error: The file "/usr/lib/aspell/it.rws" is not in the proper format.
>> Wrong endian order.
>
>
> Dear al
Your message dated Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:11:50 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Vulnerable code not present
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your respons
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:35:13AM +0200, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> Subject: libnss-ldap: This bugs come back
> Followup-For: Bug #375215
> Package: libnss-ldap
> Version: 251-5.2
>
> After an upgrade to 251-5.2, during the boot sequence i have an
> increasing timeout during udev initialization (16
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:02:10 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390726: fixed in firehol 1.231-7
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now yo
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # the following bugs are closed by packages in NEW
> #
> tags 289339 pending
Bug#289339: ITP: einstein -- puzzle game inspired by Albert Einstein's puzzle
There were no tags set.
Tags added: pending
> tags 293009 pending
Bug#293009: ITP: cunit -- Unit
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Package: gs-gpl
Version: 8.54.dfsg.1-1
Severity: grave
After an update from 8.50-1.1 ps2pdf segfaults with a ps file generated
by dvi2ps.
| Starting program: /usr/bin/gs -dSAFER -dCompatibilityLevel=1.2 -q -dNOPAUSE
-dBATCH -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=pdf/user.pdf.new -dSAFER
-dCompatibility
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 390789 grave
Bug#390789: apache2.2-common_2.2.3-1 postinst error
Severity set to `grave' from `normal'
> merge 390789 390786
Bug#390786: apache2.2-common: cannot touch /var/log/apache2/error.log
Bug#390789: apache2.2-common_2.2.3-1 postinst er
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390136: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390106: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390133: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 390855 openoffice.org
Bug#390855: openoffice.org-calc: segfault when creating/manipulating charts
Bug reassigned from package `openoffice.org-calc' to `openoffice.org'.
> severity 390855 grave
Bug#390855: openoffice.org-calc: segfault when cre
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 390762 grave
Bug#390762: openoffice.org is crashing on startup
Severity set to `grave' from `normal'
> reaasign 390762 openoffice.org
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
> close 390762 2.0.4~rc3-1
Bug#390762: openoffice.org is
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:06:01 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#390128: fixed in openoffice.org 2.0.4~rc3-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case i
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 307575 grave
Bug#307575: cross-site scripting attack via redirect parameter (CAN-2005-1308)
Severity set to `grave' from `important'
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking sy
Hi.
I don't see any reason why this is a serious bug, neither a bug at all,
apart from preventing Tomcat entering etch.
Like other libraries, it is the local administrator's responsibility to
set the CLASSPATH accordingly or, in Tomcat's case, use the common and
shared directories, as you already
Thanks for dealing with the bug so fast!
The source package appear to contain the same file:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs_1.39.orig.tar.gz
e2fsprogs-1.39/doc/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt
Steve Langasek suggested on debian-legal that asking for permission
from t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 390329 + moreinfo + unreproducible
Unknown tag/s: +.
Recognized are: patch wontfix moreinfo unreproducible fixed potato woody sid
help security upstream pending sarge sarge-ignore experimental d-i confirmed
ipv6 lfs fixed-in-experimental fixed-up
Package: apache2-common
Version: 2.0.55-4.2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hey ho,
Removing apache2-common ...
Stopping apache 2.0 web server...apache2:
Syntax error on line 116 of /etc/apache2/apache2.conf:
Syntax error on line 1 of /etc/apache2/mods-enabled/userdi
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:02:32PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Thanks for dealing with the bug so fast!
>
> The source package appear to contain the same file:
>
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs_1.39.orig.tar.gz
>
> e2fsprogs-1.39/doc/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.
Ola Lundqvist:
> Roland and Per: Please try this new version that is uploaded to
> debian today.
It works now, in version 1.2.9-20. Thanks!
--
Pelle
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi, Jaako,
thanks for taking time to investigate this bug.
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:20:10PM +0300, Jaakko Niemi wrote:
> Somehow I suspect that trac needs versioned dep to python-subversion...
>
> Can you reproduce this with python-subversion 1.4.0 ?
> (provides python2.4-subversion ...)
U
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
severity 388457 minor
thanks
Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I don't see any reason why this is a serious bug, neither a bug at all,
> apart from preventing Tomcat entering etch.
> Like other libraries, it is the local administrator's responsibi
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 388457 minor
Bug#388457: tomcat5 don't find the ejc.jar
Severity set to `minor' from `serious'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs
severity 385486 normal
thanks
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:25:47PM -0400, Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> severity 385486 serious
> thanks
>
> The severity justification for this bug is innappropriate. However, the
> severity looks correct considering that, unless someone knows
> differently, removing
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 385486 normal
Bug#385486: RM: mcvs [ia64 mipsel s390 sparc] -- RoM; FTBFS
Severity set to `normal' from `serious'
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administ
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 03:02:32PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Thanks for dealing with the bug so fast!
>>
>> The source package appear to contain the same file:
>>
>> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/e2fsprogs/e2fsprogs_1.39.orig.tar.gz
>>
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 389681 Retrieving bug reports... 0% ... E: undefined local variable
> or method `pkg' for Factory::BugsFactory:Module
Bug#389681: apt-listbugs: Reports undefined variable and fails
Changed Bug title.
> close 389681 0.0.55
Bug#389681: Retrievin
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> close 389681
Bug#389681: Retrieving bug reports... 0% ... E: undefined local variable or
method `pkg' for Factory::BugsFactory:Module
'close' is deprecated; see http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#closing.
Bug closed, send any further explanations to
Package: electricsheep
Version: 2.6.8-3
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Running electricsheep from command line gets the following
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:[~] electricsheep
X Error of failed request: BadMatch (invalid parameter attributes)
Major opcode of failed request: 141
Works fine for me on a laptop, have you tried putting the return clause *before* ldap ? If so please close the bug... I'd like to see it in etch! :)# /etc/nsswitch.conf## Example configuration of GNU Name Service Switch functionality.
# If you have the `glibc-doc' and `info' packages installed, try
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tags 386831 - experimental
Bug#386831: User tomcat5 problem after removing tomcat5 but keeping tomcat5.5
Tags were: help experimental
Tags removed: experimental
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug t
Hi again!
On 10/3/06, Nelson A. de Oliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also, I have installed apt-listbugs 0.0.58 from incoming and it's
still giving the same error.
Actually it's a different error:
# LC_ALL=C aptitude install reportbug
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree..
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:47:05 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#389681: fixed in apt-listbugs 0.0.58
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is no
Hi!
On 10/3/06, Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reproducible here too:
are you all using proxies ?
There is just a NAT here on my network.
my box -> NAT -> world
I don't know if this is causing problem (it always worked).
Also, I have installed apt-listbugs 0.0.58 from incoming
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> severity 390796 grave
Bug#390796: no nvidia-graphics-legacy-modules packages for current
nvidia-glx-legacy
Severity set to `grave' from `serious'
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracki
Your message dated Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:17:27 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#389701: fixed in wine 0.9.20-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your
Package: apt-listbugs
Version: 0.0.57
Followup-For: Bug #389681
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You asked for proxies: There is a squid in the network where I'm
located, which should handle HTTP and FTP.
Regards, Daniel
- -- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
retitle 387729 grub-install fails due to flawed installation of scripts
found 387729 0.97-17
thanks
Please note: the retitling is due to the fact that the bug is
different in 0.97-17: grub-install still fails because of a flawed
installation of its wrapper, but this time, the real script is
insta
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 387729 grub-install fails due to flawed installation of scripts
Bug#387729: Only wrapper for grub-install is available, not the real
grub-install
Changed Bug title.
(By the way, that Bug is currently marked as done.)
> found 387729 0.97-17
Bug
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.9.21
> forcemerge 386773 387409
Bug#386773: nvidia-graphics-legacy-modules-i386: Uninstallable (built for old
Linux version)
Bug#387409: nvidia-kernel-legacy-2.6-686-smp: depends on general
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> There is DFSG #4: 'Integrity of The Author's Source Code: The license
> may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form
> _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
> the source code for the
Package: kaffeine
Version: 0.8.1-4
Followup-For: Bug #390829
The Kaffeine package is possibly not responsible for the crash
because I just tried a Debian Kaffeine package from
http://fboudra.free.fr/debian/kaffeine_0.8.1-4/kaffeine_0.8.1-4_i386.deb
which is version 0.8.1-4 and the problem still
On 3 okt 2006, at 17.32, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:52:59PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
There is DFSG #4: 'Integrity of The Author's Source Code: The license
may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form
_only_ if the license allows the distribution of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm unable to reproduce this in testing. If this is the result of an
> upgrade, please try to identify which package upgrade triggered the bug.
Hi
the problem is: This was a massive upgrade I have done ... with about
As this prevents bug #372252 from
being fixed in testing, this will most probably result in nvidia-glx-legacy
being dropped from etch if new binary packages aren't made available soon.
This bug does not prevent #372252 from being fixed in testing. britney
is simply unhappy about introducing a
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
